Overall, it's not quite as powerful as the previous attempts, but it's still delicious. I think perhaps they've fixed the probems with the flavour profile by adding some older sherry casked whisky, but that's just a guess really.
Damn good dram - especially with 20% off in Tescos atm. Now I can leave off the lovely 91 distillers a bit
ps it needs just a dash of water, to open it out. There's a slight toffee harshness to it otherwise, like a young Ledaig, but with the water it unfolds beautifully. Mrrrrm - this bottle is not going to last long.
Edit: Uupps - Admiral was faster from his side of the globe to post a similar question.
Front label, left side: 31009772
Rear label, left side: 31009771
Printed onto rear of bottle:
Engraved into bottom of bottle:
underlined "04" in centre
1127 round edge
17 round opposite edge
05236141 looks the most promising - year+cask number?
believing that it is old news for you I would like to venture to mention that Talisker is bringing water in from the mainland and is warehousing most of its malt on Scottish mainland as well, despite possible redundancy. I do not know unfortunately how far from the coastline. Needles to say that the malt comes from some maltings as well. This practice is going on now for quite some time, even if I do not happen to know the exact date. What we all learned from our books and from taking part in tastings is that the barrel and its location during the maturing years plays a essential role in the development of a malt. Somewhere the question was risen if Talisker could still be called an Island whisky. That does sound like there are drastic changes going on with Talisker.
As to the codes and numbers I can not be of help, I´m afraid. But who knows what they could tell us?
kallaskander wrote:What we all learned from our books and from taking part in tastings is that the barrel and its location during the maturing years plays a essential role in the development of a malt.
This is still a highly arguable premise. Temperature and humidity certainly do play roles; proximity to the sea? There is probably no definitively empirical way to find out. Some take the notion absolutely for granted, and others regard it as romanticized marketing hooey.
kallaskander wrote:Somewhere the question was risen if Talisker could still be called an Island whisky.
Hmmm...a good question. If Scotch whisky must be matured in Scotland, oughtn't an Island whisky be matured on an island (and, more to the point, on the island on which it was distilled)? The difference is that "Island" is not a legal designation; but if the Scots truly believed in the concept of terroir, as the French do, it certainly would be. The SWA is coming rather close to opening that can of worms with its edict that a bottle labeled with a regional designation must contain only whisky from that region--the "Islay Cask Rule", if I may call it that.
Looking at my bottles, some seem to follow the code you describe, but others use something else. An Uigedail, bottled late last year, has L4 315 09:25. One i got recently (and it was just off the delivery truck) has L4 349 12:19. A recently bought Laphraoig QC has LF110R3K 8:47, a 10 CS from last year has LU25526 and something else that looks like a time.
A Lagavulin, from mid 2004, has the same (common Diageo?) layout as the Talisker: L4314CM000, above 04585064. It looks maybe like the second line's first two digits are the year - anyone else with Diageo can help confirm/reject this?
My previous theory has been abandoned btw, a Talisker 20cl recently bought has the second line start with 00, so scrap that. However, Diageo definitely seem to follow a standard - I found a recent Oban that fits the L-followed-by YDDD model.
Admiral wrote:Perhaps the whisky matured on the mainland is destined for the blenders, and the whisky left on Skye is for bottling as single malt?
You’re a man of noble sentiments, Admiral! And a romantic as well, I’m afraid.
Though I’ve no confirmed information about Talisker, Diageo’s general line of argumentation might apply here as well: “Our findings show that it is Scotland and its climate that is the important thing. It’s irrelevant to us whether Lagavulin is aged on Islay or in Central Scotland.”*.
We should bear in mind that most of Lagavulin and nearly all Caol Ila says farewell to their Islay home after a week or two. Diageo says, it’s not significant enough for the company to worry about. The author Andrew Jefford comes to the conclusion: “If enough drinkers begin to disagree, then it may become significant enough for Diageo to worry about.”
Agree! Eh, I mean disagree! Ach, you’ll get my point…
* cit. after Andrew Jefford: Peat, Smoke and Spirit, (headline) London 2005, p.285.
"Moss water, passing over rocky falls, steeped in mountain air and moorland peat, distilled and matured in oak csaks exposed to the sea shape Lagavulin's robust and smoky character."
He, he !
10. What are the numbers, letters and dots that feature on a bottle?
A: The base of a bottle includes a number of identification codes. Each bottle will incorporate some or all of the following:
> The Punt Mark - this symbol identifies which glass manufacturer made the container - in UG's case, this is a miniature UG logo
> A plant identifier - a letter followed by a number identifies which plant made the glass - U8 shows the container was made at United Glass in Alloa, U0 means it was made in Harlow
> The job number - typically consisting of two letters followed by three numbers, this identifies the actual container
> The capacity - usually shown in millilitres or centilitres
> The fill height - shown in millimetres, this is the depth below the rim of the container to which the product should be filled
> The section code - a series of dots, this identifies the mould used to make the glass. Combined with the date and time code printed on the bottle after manufacture, this enables any glass to be traced back to the precise section of machinery and mould in which the container was formed.
I hate to burst your inquisitive bubble - but your comments on the # produced exclusively for Quebec are a bit askew:
there's a sticker on the box which bears the bar code and also this: +249680. This number is also stamped in a dedicated box on the front label, which has obviously been produced especially for Quebec
This # (+249680) is the SKU assigned to Talisker 10 (Talisker 18, for example is +196154. These inventory reference #'s appear on all bottles (at least all I have seen in various provinces) across Canada and are not unique to Quebec - nor do they have any relationship to age or bottling dates... I don't know if similar (or identical) systems are used in other countries but they are of little help in determining age or distilling dates.
FYI - here is the BC Liquor Stores website - and the Talisker listing:
And - here is the Ontario listing:
Search Results: 1 result found for "249680".
TALISKER 10 YR OLD
Great Britain | UNITED DISTILLERS GROUP LONDON LTD
LCBO 249680 | 750 mL | $ 65.45
http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/ProductRes ... BER=249680
Funny thing is, I don't really care anymore, and I'm not sure why I ever did. I guess it would be nice to know when the bottle was filled, but the broader question about exactly when Talisker got dulled, and whether it has come back, would require more examination and cross-referencing than is going to happen here, anyway.
For reference on the warehousing thing--Jefford lists, among many other technical aspects, a category titled "percentage of branded [i.e. OB single] malt entirely aged on Islay". For the record, here they are:
Ardbeg--100 "at present" (in the future, at least ten years)
Bruichladdich--100 (and bottled, with Islay water)
Caol Ila--"almost none"*
Lagavulin--"well under 50"*
Mr Fjeld wrote:Well, no need to take it too seriously - it's not exactly cursing is it?
Funny, Americans don't understand the difference between vulgarity and profanity. The word in question is considered terribly impolite by many, whereas the equivalent in other languages is considered fairly mild. Americans often label this sort of vulgar speech "profane", which it most certainly is not. And then there's "obscenity"...but quiet, Mr Picky's in the other room.
(P.S. The term in question is a swear word in Australia, and is considered rude and offensive - at least to those that choose to take offence at it . Not that that stops people using it left, right, and centre of course, but it's certainly a word one doesn't expect to hear in polite society, and I'd like to think we can keep our discussions on the clean side of potty talk! )
Mr Fjeld wrote:It wasn't meant as anything else than a populare way of expression. I'll restrain myself in the future. Sorry if it upsets you.
Didn't offend me, and we're all adults here anyway...
Reminds me of the joke about two boys, ages 6 and 4...
Older one says "you know, I think it's time we started cussing..."
Younger one: !*^%&, yeah!
Older one goes downstairs for breakfast...Mom asks what he would like...
"Hell Mom, think I'll have some Cheerios..."
SMACK! Mom sends the kid back to his room...
Younger one goes downstairs..."and what will you have for breakfast, young man?"
Trembling, he says "I don't know, but you can bet your fat ass it won't be Cheerios!"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests